Some kind of logic.

[Joker]

Hello.

I've been following a couple of debates on social issues recently and looking for the words to describe a certain type of argumentation.

What do you call it when someone ignores a number of facts pertaining to the argument and to give weight to their side they bring in examples that are only tangentially related to the debate?

-Tymon

 

[jonesy]

Practical politics consists of ignoring facts.
- Henry B. Adams

I thought it might have been sidelinining, but that doesn't seem to have much anything to do with arguments. How about simply misleading?

 

[IronWolf]

What do you call it when someone ignores a number of facts pertaining to the argument and to give weight to their side they bring in examples that are only tangentially related to the debate?

Flawed logic?

 

[Umbran]

What do you call it when someone ignores a number of facts pertaining to the argument and to give weight to their side they bring in examples that are only tangentially related to the debate?

I've heard that referred to as "cherry picking"

 

[Mark CMG]

Bliss-seeking


You might find several that apply on this list -

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

 

[Pbartender]

What do you call it when someone ignores a number of facts pertaining to the argument and to give weight to their side they bring in examples that are only tangentially related to the debate?

It kind of depends on how it's done. How the tangential examples are used and how tangential they are.

At it's most basic, the tactic is a Red Herring... Subtly or blatantly changing the subject as a means of distraction from the opponent's argument. But the specific fallacy is determined by the intent of the change in subject. It could be an appeal to authority, or fear, or pity, or any number of other things.

Argumentum Verbosium (Proof by Verbosity) is another flavor, wherein the argument submitted is so long-winded and technically complex that is it difficult to deal reasonably with all the details and argue against it.

 

[IronWolf]

Maybe Straw man is what you are thinking of?

 

[MarkB]

Well, there's a detailed list of argumentative logical fallacies here (warning: TV Tropes will eat your life).

Of those, I'd say the one you're most likely facing is the Chewbacca Defense. Basically, this person is choosing whichever particular point he thinks he can disprove, regardless of how insignificant or tangential, on the assumption that if he can prove his opponent wrong, on any point whatsoever, then he must automatically be right.

 

[Herschel]

It's been a staple of talk radio and politics for years and on television is especially prevalent with FOX's nighttime commentators as well as Keith Olberman on MSNBC. It's targeting to a demographic market instead of aiming for objectivity and has been an entertainment style for quite a while but in today's less-discerning culture the lines between objectivity and agenda have been blurred mightily. (not that muckrakers haven't always been around)

I call it ridiculous, but that's just me.

 

[Joker]

Thanks for the quick and helpful replies. Those links have succinct descriptions of what I was trying to learn.

This thread was sparked by a discussion on the use of violence with regards to self-defense and defense of others.

Without going into specific politics the discussion is translated from Dutch and went like this:

Person A: While I abhor violence, I do feel that in some cases where an immediate solution is needed to protect one self, proportional violence is justified. It may very well be the least desirable response, it is unfortunately the only morally responsible course of action when faced with a threat to your life or the lives of those around you.

Person B: No, that's not true. Violence breeds violence and it doesn't solve anything. Look at all the people in the world suffering from violent regimes or in history that have lost their lives because of violence.

Person A: The discussion at hand is about the right to protect your physical body from harm. It has nothing to do with the plight of other people. I am dumbfounded to be honest that I have to defend this school of thought.

Person B: Where two people fight, two people are to blame. It's that simple. If you are faced with someone that wants to hurt you, you have the obligation to solve the conflict in a non-violent way. Like Gandhi.

Person A: ...

The discussion degenerated fairly quickly after that. Person A was a bit stumped and couldn't find the words for a proper rebut.


-Tymon